Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: The project area comprises one of the most important areas for biodiversity of the continent
Evidence B:The proposed area is a corridor associated with the area of god mother, includes areas both Bolivia and Peru, has at the least two areas of sobrelapadas conservation, has a large number of threats and total number about 10 million ha.
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: The area includes areas of critical forest ecosystems in Peru and in Bolivia
Evidence B:Ranges of different areas ranging from 70 to over 100 t / ha
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: The evidence presented can observe a large handling capacity and territorial control by the organizations. The demarcation of indigenous lands is a difficulty that exists in the area.
Evidence B:The zones are managed by indigenous organizations, but by the laws of each country and its internal problems there are limitations in decision-making and governance problems associated
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: the item is well described and based on EoI
Evidence B:In terms organizations a wide range of justifications shown and importance, yet culturally a broader explanation of peoples, cultural or practical values, sacred sites, knowledge is not given but the presence of people mentioned in isolation volunteer or initial contact, key at this point
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: The EoI describes threats precise and detailed in
Evidence B:It is an area with high amaneza for IPLC, for several years have been working shares however the sustainability of the processes is key to continue. Threats persist and are increasing illegal mining processes, road projects, among many other illicit economies. This area requires urgent action
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: Regulatory recognition established by constitutions are a very favorable framework
Evidence B:Although political conditions are not the best in Bolivia to work with IPLC, a list of actions leading indigenous organizations in the area, and the project would help to give sustainability to the same shown. For Peru is running projects that could be consolidated within the framework of this proposal.
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: In both countries (Peru and Bolivia) a legal framework sufficiently wide recognition is appreciated, but management still depends basically on indigenous initiatives rather than government
Evidence B:In the past both in Bolivia and Peru there has been strong support in promoting actions, mechanisms and projects harnessing work with IPLC, however Bolivia vision and government support is currently unclear, which in Peru if there, put REDD + projects running examples and a series of actions
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: The evidence described is sufficient
Evidence B:If there is, however, given the magnitude of the threats, interests and negative impacts in the area, led by IPLC projects need more support to continue and enable their sustainability
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: The objectives pursued in other projects described are very close to conservation purposes
Evidence B:FENAMAD and Savia implement projects and activities in the area, which placed as possible projects to generate synergies. In terms of possible effective joint feasibility perceived
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:This aligned, set a key area for the Amazon region by generating global environmental benefits, is led directly by IP and allows the support of actions that international cooperation has been supporting. It also has an international component
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:They are clear but in terms of explaining the activity, more detail is required in the expecífica activity
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:He did not have more detail and involucar more than 10 million ha, it is possible that the proposed activities may be too ambitious.
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:investment versus results and activities is within the range, but require more details
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:If, FENAMAD presents a list of projects to articulate and co-finance mainly in Peru, Bolivia if clear action is not presented for co-financing
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:10 million hectares impacted by this process
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:a convincing list of indicators that includes cultural and media aspects of life presents
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:some elements are expressed, but there is no clear strategy for long-term sustainability
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:results structure that contributes to the NDC in each country and national strategies evidence
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: So it is advisable to specify very specific processes and mechanisms of participation of women, especially regarding the mechanisms of internal recognition of their role as women leaders
Evidence B:There are clear elements associated with gender but not a clear strategy
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:in terms of scale presents a high potential also is proposed as the continuity and sustainability of previous actions developed.
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: Clearly, both proposing organizations as its internal composition, correspond to organizations IPLC
Evidence B:It is run by two indigenous organizations with experience, mainly in Peru.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:Both organizations demonstrate leadership, coordinated actions and processes consolidades with indigenous peoples.
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:Besides being the leading two organizations show other large organizations as beneficiaries
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:0
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:If four proposals shows a similar amount of resources associated
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: Gef has executed projects
Evidence B:If two processes handle • FENAMAD through the experience of implementation and management of the CFP / SFP / ICCA / 2019/02 project. • Since 2013, SAP has implemented projects within the Small Grants Program of UNDP in Bolivia, as mechanisms for channeling funds from the GEF towards civil society.